Search ideas

Superseded by #696. This comment was generated automatically.

Your subconscious is like a computer […]

She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have been better if she had said the subconscious is a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is automatic like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.

more correct

Something is either correct it isn’t. There is no “more” correct.

I just found this related Popper quote underscoring my point:

Truth is hard to come by. It needs both ingenuity in criticizing old theories, and ingenuity in the imaginative invention of new theories. This is so not only in the sciences, but in all fields.

Superseded by #670. This comment was generated automatically.

Your subconscious is like a computer […]

She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have been more correct if she had said the subconscious is a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is automatic like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.

Superseded by #668. This comment was generated automatically.

Your subconscious is like a computer […]

She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have been clearer if she had said the subconscious is a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is automatic like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.

Ayn Rand writes:

Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.

[…] your subconscious is programmed by chance […]

This sounds as if chance was the programmer. The word ‘randomly’ might have been better. But that presumably still isn’t quite what she meant; I think she meant something like ‘haphazardly’, with no clear direction, by uncritical integration, ie osmosis, of ideas from the surrounding culture, as I believe she put it elsewhere.

[The] main function [of your subconscious] is the integration of your ideas.

Isn’t it the conscious mind that does the integrating, and then the subconscious stores the integrated ideas and executes them in applicable contexts?

[…] more complex a computer than men can build […]

It’s not clear to me that the basic building blocks of the subconscious (as opposed to its components at runtime) are necessarily all that complex. Why couldn’t they be simple?

[…] more complex a computer than men can build […]

Unclear what exactly “can” means here. More complex than we can build today? True. More complex than we could build in principle? Not true: we could build it, given the right knowledge.

Your subconscious is like a computer […]

She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have been clearer if she had said it’s a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is automatic like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.

Ayn Rand writes:

Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.

To prevent edit warring and vandalism, maybe Veritula could have a reputation system similar to that of Stack Overflow, where you need to earn enough reputation before you can edit someone else’s post, say.

I also recall Deutsch saying somewhere that there is no such thing as being “fully rational” anyway – that there is no ceiling to how rational one can be.

Deutsch would know that children generally can’t help with a chemistry problem that requires a PhD, say, so this criticism can’t apply.

Deutsch doesn’t claim that children are “fully rational”. His article is compatible with children being only partially rational but still able to solve problems as long as they’re not prevented from doing so. That sounds a lot more realistic.

Since your child has never done chemistry, he hasn’t yet been coerced about chemistry, so he should be fully rational about it and “easily” find a solution.

The implication here is that Deutsch thinks children are “fully rational” and could help even with the most difficult problems, which isn’t realistic, as is then stated explicitly.

Lack of coercion damage/irrationalities may not be sufficient to solve problems, but it may well be necessary, or very nearly necessary.

The key to problem solving is not lack of coercion damage. Rationality and problem solving are positive skills to be developed.

It’s true that problems at the forefront of science are often extremely difficult; it may take a genius a lifetime to solve even one of them, if he's lucky.

But everyday problems in the household are typically much easier to solve.

For example, parents may want to get their child to eat broccoli for dinner, against the child’s wishes. They then take away his dinner altogether so that the “natural consequence”, as the OP in the original article called it, of the child going hungry that night ‘teaches’ the child that he should eat his broccoli.

In such cases, which are common, Deutsch is right that simply letting the child’s creativity take over really does solve the problem easily. The child simply picks something he wishes to eat instead. If the parents just got out of the way, the problem would practically solve itself.

As I recall, the insight that major scientific discoveries may not be achieved in one’s lifetime is Popper’s. While Popper is referenced in the surrounding context, on this issue, the author of this article claims to have originated this point (“My point is that [...]”).

IIRC, it’s in his autobiography that Popper says that scientific discovery is often extremely difficult, never guaranteed to happen, requires luck, and may evade even the best scientists. If that is true, this point should be attributed to Popper, ideally with a source.

The article says that solving problems is generally difficult and “could take centuries”; “[...] you might not make a major scientific discovery in your lifetime.”

It then says that having the child solve a problem that the parent is unable to solve, as the referenced article suggests, is unrealistic because you wouldn’t expect a child to be able to help with a hard chemistry problem either.